On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 09:35:51PM +0200, Kristian Larsson wrote: > > I wonder though, isn't ipX-address-and-prefix-length the clearer name, or if > we do want to shorten then ipX-address-and-plen. I think Martin stated the > case for ipX-address-and-prefix but that is IMHO not the way this is > typically perceived by people. > > 1.2.3.4/24 > ^^^^^^^----- ipv4 address > ^^^-- ipv4 prefix length > > now, taking the prefix-length you know that 1.2.3 is the prefix but does > that mean the above is an IPv4 address and a prefix? Or is it just that you > can infer the prefix from the above? It's just different ways of looking at > it. My experience tells me ipX-address-and-prefix-length is the clearer way > of conveying what this is. >
I guess this is somewhat subjective. The prefix length is the number used to convey what the prefix is. So you are effectively defining an address and the prefix that this address belongs to. ;-) Given that we already have ip-prefix (which does as well use a prefix length to convey what the prefix is), it seems ip-address-and-prefix is more consistent with the existing RFC 6991 definitions. Being consistent with what we have was the main reason for me to prefer ip-address-and-prefix. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
